alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Alfacell  Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Kuslima Shogen,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date:  March 11, 2005


                                           /s/ Kuslima Shogen
                                           -------------------------
                                           Name:  Kuslima Shogen
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
H. Res. 294

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 27, 2001.

Whereas the House of Representatives recently found it necessary to close its office buildings to Members, staff, and

the public due to the presence of Anthrax;

Whereas the Comptroller General made an offer to the House

of Representatives to make the General Accounting Office’s building and equipment available to the Members

and staff of the House of Representatives during the period in which the House office buildings were closed, an

offer the House gratefully accepted;

Whereas the House’s subsequent temporary use of General

Accounting Office workspaces, telephones, computers,

and other equipment imposed an inconvenience on the

employees of the Office, who graciously vacated their

worksites; and

Whereas the sacrifices made by employees of the General Accounting Office during this period enabled the House of

Representatives to continue its legislative work on behalf

of the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses

its gratitude to the General Accounting Office for accommodating the House during the recent closure of the House of-
2

•HRES 294 EH

fice buildings, and sincerely thanks the hundreds of General

Accounting Office employees who generously vacated their

workspaces and otherwise helped to make it possible for the

work of the House to continue during this period.

SEC. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall

transmit a copy of this resolution to the Comptroller General

of the United States.

Attest:

Clerk.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 2232

VERONICA M. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
ROCK SOLID JANITORIAL, INC., jointly and severally; SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, jointly and severally; SELECTIVE WAY INSURANCE COMPANY, jointly and severally; SELECTIVE INSURANCE GROUP, jointly and severally,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:22

- cv

- 00074

- AWA

- RJK )

Submitted : March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , C ircuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Veronica Moody Johnson , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2232 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Veronica Moody Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) . We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Johnson v. Rock Solid Janitorial,

Inc. , No. 2:22

- c v

- 00074

- AWA

- RJK (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2022) . We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-2232 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Termination of Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
  
 TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made effective as of February 15, 2004, by
and between Raymond E. Wirta (“Executive”) and CB Richard Ellis Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS the parties to this Agreement are the parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated July 20, 2001 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to
terminate the Employment Agreement except as herein described. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

AGREEMENT 
  
 1. The parties hereby agree and acknowledge that, except as expressly set forth in Paragraph 2 hereof, the Employment Agreement is terminated effective as
of February 15, 2004, and shall be of no further force and effect. 
  
 2. The Company and Executive agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, (i) this Agreement is not intended and shall not be deemed to terminate, amend or in any other way modify Section 5(b) of the Employment Agreement,
entitled “Loans,” and (ii) such Section 5(b) shall continue in full force and effect pursuant to the terms thereof. 
  
 3. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of New York, without reference to conflict of laws provisions thereof.

  
 4. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 
  
 [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.] 
  









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first
above written. 
  

			
	 CB RICHARD ELLIS SERVICES, INC.,
 a Delaware
corporation

		
	By:	 	/s/    KENNETH J. KAY
	 	 	

	Name:	 	Kenneth J. Kay            
	 	 	

	Its:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	



  
  

			
	 EXECUTIVE
  

	
	 /s/    RAYMOND E. WIRTA


	Raymond E. Wirta
§ 38.25 Doors, steps and thresholds. ( a ) *Slip resistance.* All aisles, steps, floor areas where people walk and floors in securement locations shall have slip-resistant surfaces.
( b ) *Contrast.* All step edges, thresholds and the boarding edge of ramps or lift platforms shall have a band of color(s) running the full width of the step or edge which contrasts from the step tread and riser, or lift or ramp surface, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.
( c ) *Door height.* For vehicles in excess of 22 feet in length, the overhead clearance between the top of the door opening and the raised lift platform, or highest point of a ramp, shall be a minimum of 68 inches. For vehicles of 22 feet in length or less, the overhead clearance between the top of the door opening and the raised lift platform, or highest point of a ramp, shall be a minimum of 56 inches.
CENTCOM colonel earns first star
 By Sgt. Fredrick Coleman , CENTCOM Public Affairs
  Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of U.S. Central Command, and Patty George pin on the one-star shoulder boards for Brig. Gen. Randy George during his promotion ceremony here Sept. 27. (USCENTCOM photo by Sgt. Fredrick J. Coleman, USMC)
 **MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. –** Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of U.S. Central Command, and Patty George pin on the one-star shoulder boards for Brig. Gen. Randy George during his promotion ceremony here Sept. 27.  George, who’s served 25 years, currently serves as the executive officer to the USCENTCOM commander.  George, a graduate of the United States Military Academy, is one of seven members of his graduating class to be promoted to the general officer ranks. (USCENTCOM photo by Sgt. Fredrick J. Coleman, USMC)
Exhibit 10.31


 


TWELFTH AMENDMENT TO


KAISER GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.


SECTION 401(k) PLAN


 


WHEREAS, Section 10.2 of the Kaiser Group
International, Inc. Section 401(k) Plan (“Plan”) permits the Board of Directors
of Kaiser Group International, Inc., (“Company”), or any committee thereof, to
amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors would like
to amend the Plan to reflect recent law regarding the cash out of small
benefits;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, effective for distributions on or
after March 28, 2005, the Plan is amended as follows:


 


1.             Section
8.8 is amended to add a paragraph at the end to read as follows:


 


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, for distributions on or after March 28,
2005, in the event of a mandatory distribution greater than $1,000 in accordance
with this Section, if the Participant does not elect to have such distribution
paid directly to an eligible retirement plan specified by the Participant in a
direct rollover or to receive the distribution directly, then the Company will
pay the distribution in a direct rollover to an individual retirement plan
designated by the Company. For purposes of determining whether a mandatory
distribution is greater than $1,000, the portion of the Participant’s
distribution attributable to any rollover contributions is included,
notwithstanding Section 12.5.”


 


Executed this 12th
day of December, 2005.


 


	
   

  	
  KAISER GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Douglas
  W. McMinn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
    Title:
  Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.93 What validity tests must laboratories conduct on primary oral fluid specimens? As a laboratory, if you conduct validity testing under § 40.92, you must conduct it in accordance with the requirements of this section. ( a ) You may test for a biomarker such as albumin or immunoglobulin G (IgG) or a test for a specific adulterant.
( b ) You must follow the applicable HHS requirements for any additional validity testing.
[88 FR 27643, May 2, 2023]
Request for Information X-Flite Aerial LLC (FAA-2015-3513) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Caccamo: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3513). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your

petition.

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date 

listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by December 9, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

FAA Office of Rulemaking

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:45 AM 

To: Jon@x-flite.net
#### The State *ex rel.*The Attorney General v. Claggett.

Practice in *the*Supreme Court: quo warranto. This court will ordinarily decline original cognizance of contests between private parties over the title to office.

*Quo Warranto*on information of the Attorney General on relation of Henry Turner.

*Alex. Graves*and *Walker $ Field*for relator.

*J. D. Shewalter for*respondent.

Hough, J.

As the information in this case was-filed at the relation of a private person, and as it further appears from the pleadings in the cause that the relator and respondent are rival claimants for the office of register of the city of Lexington, and that this proceeding is, therefore, nothing more than a contest over the title to said office, we are of opinion that the writ of *quo warranto*has been improvidently issued, and the proceeding will, there*389fore, be dismissed. We see nothing in tbe circumstances of this case of such an exceptional nature as to induce us to depart from our long established custom to decline original cognizance of causes of thus character. *State ex rel.Young v. Buskirk,*43 Mo. 111, and cases there cited. They can be tried with much less expense and inconvenience by the inferior tribunals having jurisdiction thereof, and the condition of our docket is not such as to cause us to invite accessions thereto by the unnecessary exercise of our original jurisdiction.

All the judges concur.'
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

#### § 40.395 Can you settle a PIE proceeding?

At any time before the Director's decision, you and the initiating official can, with the Director's concurrence, settle a PIE proceeding.
#### Susan M. Chesbro, Respondent, v. J. Warren Tilden, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with coats. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.
Exhibit 21-2



COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY SUBSIDIARY LISTING



|                                             |  |            |  |                          
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------- |  | -------------------------
|Affiliates                                   |  | Trade Name |  | Jurisdiction or Formation
|ComEd Financing II                           |  |            |  | Delaware                 
|ComEd Financing III                          |  |            |  | Delaware                 
|ComEd Funding, LLC                           |  |            |  | Delaware                 
|ComEd Transitional Funding Trust             |  |            |  | Delaware                 
|Commonwealth Edison Company                  |  |            |  | Illinois                 
|Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. |  |            |  | Indiana                  
|Edison Development Canada, Inc.              |  |            |  | Ontario                  
|Edison Finance Partnership                   |  |            |  | Canada
**Exhibit 31.B**
**Certification**
I, D. Dwight Scott, certify that:
1. I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of El Paso CGP Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 20, 2005                 /s/ D. Dwight Scott   D. Dwight Scott    Executive Vice President and
§ 511.53 Appeal from initial decision. ( a ) *Who may file notice of intention.* Any party may appeal an Initial Decision to the Administrator provided that within ten (10) days after issuance of the Initial Decision such party files and serves a notice of intention to appeal.
( b ) *Appeal brief.* The appeal shall be in the form of a brief, filed within forty (40) days after service of the Initial Decision, duly served upon all parties and participants. The appeal brief shall contain, in the order indicated, the following: ( 1 ) A subject index of the matters in the brief, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabetically arranged), textbooks, statutes, and other material cited, with page references thereto;
( 2 ) A concise statement of the case;
( 3 ) A specification of the position urged;
( 4 ) The argument, presenting clearly the points of fact and law relied upon in support of the position on each question, with specific page references to the record and the legal or other material relied upon; and
( 5 ) A proposed form of order for the Administrator's consideration in lieu of the order contained in the Initial Decision.
( c ) *Answering brief.* Within thirty (30) days after service of the appeal brief upon all parties and participants, any party may file an answering brief which shall also contain a subject index, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabetically arranged), textbooks, statutes, and other material cited, with page references thereto. Such brief shall present clearly the points of fact and law relied upon in support of the position taken on each question, with specific page references to the record and legal or other material relied upon.
( d ) *Participant's brief.* Within thirty (30) days after service of the appeal brief upon all parties and participants, any participant may file an appeal brief which should contain a subject index, with page references, and a table of authorities being relied upon. Such brief shall present clearly the position taken by the participant on each question raised by the appellant(s).
( e ) *Cross appeal.* If a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file a notice of cross-appeal within ten (10) days of the date on which the first notice of appeal was filed. Cross-appeals shall be included in the answering brief and shall conform to the requirements for form, content and filing specified in paragraph (c) of this section. If an appeal is noticed but not perfected, no cross-appeal shall be permitted and the notice of cross-appeal shall be deemed void.
( f ) *Reply brief.* A reply brief shall be limited to rebuttal of matters in answering briefs, including matters raised in cross-appeals. A reply brief shall be filed and within fourteen (14) days after service of an answering brief, or on the day preceding the oral argument, whichever comes first.
( g ) *Oral argument.* The purpose of an oral argument is to emphasize and clarify the issues. Any party may request oral argument. The Administrator may order oral argument upon request or upon his or her own initiative. All oral arguments shall be reported and transcribed.
#### Mary C. Morrell, Respondent, v. James A. Morrell, Appellant

Order affirmed, with ten dol-

lars costs and disbursements.
# Feb. 23: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Feb. 23, 2015

February 23, 2015

Release # 20150223FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA** — On Feb. 22, U.S. and Coalition military forces continued toattack ISIL terrorists in Syria, using attack, fighter, bomber and remotelypiloted aircraft to conduct 18 airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and Coalitionmilitary forces conducted seven airstrikes in Iraq, using attack, fighterand remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. All strikes tookplace between 8 a.m., Feb. 22, and 8 a.m., Feb. 23, local time.

The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last pressrelease:

Syria
      - Near Al Hasakah, 11 airstrikes struck ten ISIL tactical units anddestroyed two ISIL vehicles, an ISIL bunker and an ISIL fighting position.
      - Near Dayr az Zawr, an airstrike struck an ISIL crude oil collectionpoint.
      - Near Kobani, six airstrikes struck an ISIL large tactical unit, fourISIL tactical units, an ISIL fighting position and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions.

Iraq
      - Near Al Asad, three airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, anISIL fighting position and destroyed an ISIL checkpoint and an ISIL fighting position.
      - Near Ar Rutbah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.
      - Near Kirkuk, an airstrike stuck an ISIL tactical unit.
      - Near Mosul, an airstrike struck an ISIL checkpoint.
      - Near Tal Afar, an airstrike destroyed four ISIL armored vehicles.
      Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned tobase safely.
      The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, theoperation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose toIraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. Thedestruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terroristgroup's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nationswhich have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., Australia,Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Syria include the U.S.,Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.